Yes, focusing on the video footage we all have seen on the "collapse" of the WTC towers, those images are fake. Simon showed that very convincingly in his September Clues video. But if you don't know that (or maybe even don't want to know), you build a scientific hypothesis on fake images. That does not discredit the hypothesis in itself.

You are wasting your time and mine by posting on this forum.You clearly don't understand what good science is.

Yes, focusing on the video footage we all have seen on the "collapse" of the WTC towers, those images are fake. Simon showed that very convincingly in his September Clues video. But if you don't know that (or maybe even don't want to know), you build a scientific hypothesis on fake images. That does not discredit the hypothesis in itself.

You are wasting your time and mine by posting on this forum.You clearly don't understand what good science is.

Hi Seneca,

nice to meet you. Why so agressive?

If you feel I am "wasting your time", feel free to not react, right?

As you can see in my intro I am a scientist myself so, the last remark is a bit off course. I registered here just because I like the science performed here on Cluesforum.

Which does not mean I cannot talk about other views outside of the forum. That freedom we have all, right? And this is the topic for it?

To make a comparison on WTC-towers-Judy-Wood/Dimitri-Khazenov; I am a geologist. If I would receive a sample that is fake (but I don't know that) and I analyze it according to scientific geological methods and the fakery is so good that I cannot see it, is my analysis then unscientific? I would say no.

Selene wrote:To make a comparison on WTC-towers-Judy-Wood/Dimitri-Khazenov; I am a geologist. If I would receive a sample that is fake (but I don't know that) and I analyze it according to scientific geological methods and the fakery is so good that I cannot see it, is my analysis then unscientific? I would say no.

Dear Selene,

As far as I can tell, you are a most sincere person - let me just make this sincere statement - and get this out of the way.

The thing is, regarding Judy Wood / Dimitri Khalezov and their purported 'scientific methods', neither of them are claiming to have been analyzing samples of the WTC rubble - or anything of the sort. The two of them are only basing their claims on the 'strength' of what is depicted in the 9/11 imagery - (and, more specifically, in the WTC collapse videos).

Let us now imagine that you, as a geologist, were asked to make a scientific assessment of some volcano eruption in a remote island - and ALL YOU HAD were a few videos of the alleged event. Would you not first make sure that the videos you were presented with were real and legit? Would this not be the very first step you would take - before even starting to use your scientific background to make ANY sort of assessment with regards to that volcano eruption?

Selene wrote:To make a comparison on WTC-towers-Judy-Wood/Dimitri-Khazenov; I am a geologist. If I would receive a sample that is fake (but I don't know that) and I analyze it according to scientific geological methods and the fakery is so good that I cannot see it, is my analysis then unscientific? I would say no.

Dear Selene,

As far as I can tell, you are a most sincere person - let me just make this sincere statement - and get this out of the way.

The thing is, regarding Judy Wood / Dimitri Khalezov and their purported 'scientific methods', neither of them are claiming to have been analyzing samples of the WTC rubble - or anything of the sort. The two of them are only basing their claims on the 'strength' of what is depicted in the 9/11 imagery - (and, more specifically, in the WTC collapse videos).

Let us now imagine that you, as a geologist, were asked to make a scientific assessment of some volcano eruption in a remote island - and ALL YOU HAD were a few videos of the alleged event. Would you not first make sure that the videos you were presented with were real and legit? Would this not be the very first step you would take - before even starting to use your scientific background to make ANY sort of assessment with regards to that volcano eruption?

Ok, that's a good point and comparison.

But wasn't all the rubble taken away by the US government for "disposal/destruction"? Then it becomes very hard to include the samples in the analysis, right? So what's left is the video footage, obviously fake, but if that's all you have?

Same for Apollo, the stuff I am working on. I do not have the real "Moon" rock samples, yet publications and pictures. Now, these tell me a lot (mainly that they are not Moon rocks ). But is my analysis then "rubbish" (my parafrasing) because I do not have the chance to look at and touch the real rocks?

Seneca wrote:You are wasting your time and mine by posting on this forum.You clearly don't understand what good science is.

As you can see in my intro I am a scientist myself so, the last remark is a bit off course. I registered here just because I like the science performed here on Cluesforum.

Which does not mean I cannot talk about other views outside of the forum. That freedom we have all, right? And this is the topic for it?

To make a comparison on WTC-towers-Judy-Wood/Dimitri-Khazenov; I am a geologist. If I would receive a sample that is fake (but I don't know that) and I analyze it according to scientific geological methods and the fakery is so good that I cannot see it, is my analysis then unscientific? I would say no.

It was not a remark, it was a conclusion. You're comparison is wrong. If the fakery of 9/11 was so realistic ("so good I cannot see it") then Judy Wood wouldn't have to invent these strange hypotheses about magical weapons.But for me the problem is not that she didn't see the fakery and went on to make these hypotheses. The problem is that she didn't test them enough. That is why it cannot possibly be "good science".

My hypothesis was that you do not know what good science is.I gave you a chance to prove yourself and disproof my hypothesis by answering my questions:

Can you explain why you think this is good science? Has she given any other evidence beside the faked images? Has she done any experiments that prove her theory? Does her science help you to explain any phenomena besides the faked images? NASA at least pretends to do that.

You failed. You don't see or want to talk about the importance of testing hypotheses, that is why you should participate on a conspiracy forum and not here at cluesforum.

Seneca wrote:It was not a remark, it was a conclusion. You're comparison is wrong. If the fakery of 9/11 was so realistic ("so good I cannot see it") then Judy Wood wouldn't have to invent these strange hypotheses about magical weapons.

I never said I agreed with "magical weapons".

Where Judy Wood and Dimitri Khalenov point at are:- the "pulverisation" of the Twin Towers- the hot steel MONTHS after it happened

Now, Judy failed to see the fakery, which you could consider bad science, but to ask people to test this; how would that be possible?

Khalenov came with a different idea; a thermonuclear explosion. Based on his background, makes sense, I also seek the geology in things. To me, that did not convince me of the pulverisation part, but it well explained how on Earth in a non-volcanic area you could possibly have hot steel months after it happened (three, I recall).

Simons video is excellent and no worries and I really don't understand these attacks, this forum is great, finally.

But that is part of the story. Yes, the images are fake, the videos, yes. But; the towers are not there anymore on the morning of September 12th. They are gone, so they must have been taken down.

As we do not know what the eyewitnesses saw and only have these faked videos we do not know the mechanism by which this horrible act has been performed.

It could be a "simple" conventional controlled demolition and hoping no amateur witness films it and compares it to the videos as shown in the Main Stream Media, but how do we explain the molten steel? That is a huge thermal source, which you cannot disregard.

It does not change, criticize, disprove, or attacks the great work of Cluesforum/Septemberclues, it merely adds to it outside of the video fakery.

What really happened? That is the question we all ask and to base that on fake images is sloppy, true.

I gave you a chance to prove yourself and disproof my hypothesis by answering my questions:

I did not see these questions before, please see above about my explanation.

that is why you should participate on a conspiracy forum and not here at cluesforum.

Oh no, trust me, I am in the right place. Conspiracy fora follow too much the interests of people, who are semi-awake.

What made it good to me? To explain the observation of pulverization. That has never been seen before like this and needed an explanation. All other parties neglected that very peculiar fact in the -yes, faked- images.

I am not attacking you, I want you to clarify your claim that Judy Wood is doing "good science".I even helped you by asking you some simple questions. If you knew what you were talking about you wouldn't need them. You are still unable or unwilling to answer them.

In my last comment I clearly wrote that for me the problem was not that she didn't spot the fakery. And not that she invented these hypotheses.Yet, in your reply you start going into this, again.

As for the bigger problem, that the hypotheses were not tested enough you only write:

Selene wrote:but to ask people to test this; how would that be possible?

So now I have to come up with an idea how to test Judy Wood's hypothesis?Or are you saying that it is not falsifiable?There are many ways to test an hypothesis and if Judy Wood did good science she had to find a way. Apparently she didn't. But this does not stop her from making her claims. For example, the title of a 2,5 hour movie is "Dr Judy Wood : Evidence of breakthrough energy technology on 9/11 "

Furthermore, given what we know now about Judy Wood, we cannot be sure that she (or the entity that she represents) didn't fake or misrepresent some of the data or images herself.

But you apparently agreed with a thermonuclear explosion, how is that not a magical weapon?

Maybe you also didn't read my other comment:

Selene wrote:Justa bella quibus necessariaWars are just to those to whom they are necessaryEdmund Burke (1790)

Seneca wrote:So you compare exposing shills to starting wars???Even if shills could help some people to wake up to some higher truth, us exposing them here does not prevent that in any way, so what is your problem?

I don't like that you make us sound like warmongers so please refrain from your habit of using militaristic words, when it is not appropriate (war, fighting, enemies, aggressive, arrows.. ).

I would be grateful if someone would point to the weaknesses in my claims and arguments or to my contradictions, and not be complaining someone was "attacking me" or "aggressive".

We do not have:- samples- live tests- publications about the great scientific breakthroughs of all time (flying a heterogeneous plane into a heterogeneous building causing a completely smooth and homogeneous unrestricted entry)

So we have to work with what we have. Rowing with the peddles we have. You know the saying.

Then the first stage is observation.

Assuming the video was real and the statements (a quick search did not bring convincing information, more detailed search will follow) about the "hot steel 3 months after 9/11" are true, then the only two people who ever mentioned the pulverisation and thermal effects were the people I mentioned.

Wood was for me so the speak the prima inter pares, so the only "good science" on that subject around.

Her statement that a "revolutionary" never seen before mechanism (I don't want to go into weapons or free energy or so, that's not the real point) must have been used to cause this never observed pulverisation effect, is of course convenient.

There is no way to test something that has never been seen before. And without access to the samples of the real event, how to prove that your never seen before hypothesis fits the never seen before pulverisation observation?

As I explained, and I am not the only one, my path into this world view is steep and confronting. Along that path you find people who explain things better, point at things and so on. Until a month ago I never heard of Cluesforum.

If you call me in the second post "someone who doesn't understand (good) science" then, yes, without knowing me or my backgrounds, I'd say that's quite agressive. And unnecessary. I sent you a private message, would be good to chat about it.

We, the 99% non-psychopaths (although with the huge media fakery scam it seems less) all have the same goal, right? Hence my example about the soldier. That was not meant to bring in military as such, more the metaphore of battle. Battle against the stories and for what is really true. And not against eachother.

To increase that force of people more, the good science here, but also an open view to people is required.It is not easy to step into the rabbit hole and exit the Matrix. In my eyes it should thus be inviting and not threatening to make this "giant leap for mankind".

If part of the people who are awakening but not (yet) seeing the full truth should be exposed in any way, I have no problem with that of course.

It's more the language and yes, I feel sometimes (not to me, more in general), agressiveness. Is that really necessary? Aren't we fighting for (mostly) the same cause? I would say so, even if people have other interests like selling water filterers.

I consider it so important to NOT build "conspiracy theories".

I see real thruth seeking as atheism. We do not believe in the stories we're told. That does not mean we have to have a full explanation on what and why things happen. So we do not have to be quantumphysicists explaining the nitty gritty detail of the Big Bang in order to reject the idea of a creator.

Yet, I can like people with scientific backgrounds who do make this effort and in the process of finding out simon was smarter than them, I followed some of these people, that's why I brought them up here.

No need to feel offended or anything. Just sharing my thoughts and (short) experience.

And for your second post; I am not looking for 'weaknesses' in your statements or so, that's not why I am here. Just don't consider "you don't know good science" and "you failed" if we -not even- know us so shortly very necessary.

Selene wrote:That was not meant to bring in military as such, more the metaphore of battle. Battle against the stories and for what is really true. And not against eachother.

The metaphor of battle was what I meant when I asked you politely to refrain from your habit of using militaristic words when not appropriate (war, fighting, enemies, aggressive, arrows.. ) I used the wrong word but I thought that my examples were obvious.

It is not a useful metaphor. "To battle against the stories" sounds as silly as "to battle against windmills".According to Wikipedia, fighting is "purposeful violent conflict intended to establish dominance over the opposition."The metaphor can be useful in politics, but we are not into politics.

Please provide a concrete example were someone on this forum is fighting someone else, or take back your words.

Okay, you made your point Selene, but without evidence, it's a waste of this particular forum's time, and it makes it seem as though you could be incredibly disingenuous on this matter — just to test your ability to modify our mission.

The videos are fake. There isn't an "if" position left for you to weasel in Judy Wood junk science. They are comprised of computer animations and composites — which Simon and others have analyzed extensively to demonstrate — and therefore not proof of the real means of the nine buildings' demolitions.

You also really do need to swallow your words, because you are implying others of being provocateurs when that has been a precise description of your role from the start of this discussion. I see that you are trying to modify our mission by saying we should do more than just present forensics, science and analysis. You are saying we need to form some kind of social function or "team up" with people we scientifically disagree with, in order to create a movement.

I am sorry to disagree, but until Simon decides otherwise, our last discussions on this have determined that we have elected to ensure this "team up" happens outside the confines of this forum, because our forum's topics are marginalized enough as it is without Alex Jones and Judy Wood-type fake researchers muddying it. Until these pundits and social media bandits can actually admit they are looking at dubious edited video at best then our common ground would be rooted not in "compromise" but destruction of science. We refuse to be complicit in such an endeavor, since we have made the stance that information should be free and open to the public, even at the expense of truth's discomforting fit to those resistant to it. We are presently the only ones on the entire Internet, that we have found, setting up this line of inquiry.

Why is it that those whom you would defend as legit inquirers would refuse to consider they have been wrong — refuse to admit their "video evidence" is nothing but creative artistry?

You must understand that regardless of how nice these performers' mission sounds, it is junk science meant to mislead you and/or promote a revolution based on flimsy evidence and unsound logic. It makes us all look like fools for endorsing it, and it sets a bad precedent or foundation for a better way. Judy Wood in particular is an embarrassing fake, a fraud comprised of different or differently photoshopped actresses/images and is an imitation of true scientific endeavor. Her images are fake. She pretends to analyze fake images, then pretends to be intellectually eviscerated by simple science questions in discussions. She neglects to credit George Marengo in the fabrication of her so-called "burnt car" photos. She is an act!

The sheer number of people who would have us tolerating this kind of scam for the wrong reasons — that is, to give it a platform for errant belief or to help them manipulate crowds of people — makes it seem that you are of that number, even if you are not. This is why we are taking offense at your defense of bad science. If you wouldn't mind, please let's move on, and know that further defense of obvious shills like Judy Wood might result in your dismissal from the forum. Apologies, and no personal slight intended, but that's how it must be here to maintain our stance that such antics are more worthy of suspicion than endorsement. Also, kindly refrain from inferring we are wrong when you clearly haven't examined the evidence yourself.

In fairness, I don't think you really understood this, nor do I think you actually looked at their photos critically until now. I suggest you do so immediately, and if you need help grasping it, please read the forum's discussion on these characters to understand why they are less than worthy of your (or anyone else's) trust.